You won't believe this: In an article in Frankfurter Rundschau, a leading left-wing daily, Germany's environmental minister Jürgen Trittin holds U.S. president George Bush responsible for hurricane Katrina.

Yes, that's right. The hurricane Katrina that killed dozens of people, that destroyed countless homes, flooded parts of Louisiana and Mississippi, that left millions without electricity - it's all Bush's fault, according to a leading member of the German Green party, who happens to be Environmental Minister in Chancellor Schroeder's cabinet. Never mind that statistics don't show a particularly increase in the frequency of hurricanes in the U.S. in the last decades. Germany's general elections are scheduled for September 18, and the German left is in dire need of a neocon scapegoat for every disaster that befalls the world. And George W. Bush is the default villain in German politics and in the German media...

Excerpts of Trittin's article:

By neglecting environmental protection, America’s president shuts his eyes to the economic and human damage that natural catastrophes like Katrina inflict on his country and the world’s economy. ...many Americans have long been unwilling to follow the president’s errant environmental policy. Indications are multiplying that Bush has more than Katrina’s headwind blowing in his face... . When reason finally pays a visit to climate-polluter headquarters, the international community has to be prepared to hand America a worked out proposal for the future of international climate protection. The German Government stands ready. (Translation of quote by Richard Bartholomew)

Consider this a job application on the part of Mr. Trittin. He will be kicked out of office as a result of the German election on September 18 and desperately looks for a new employer.

I just wonder if the U.S. government wouldn't want to muster the services of this very capable political talent in order to shape up America's environmental policies. Admittedly, the U.S. would lose several million jobs as a result of Trittin's suicidal environmental policies, without any noticeable effects on air quality or hurricane frequency.

But France, Russia, China and Japan - all of which do not seriously consider adopting Trittin's costly environmental demands - will be jubilant. And that's something the U.S. would certainly be proud of...

(Just in case you're interested in Trittin's career, here are some highlights, as presented in his official biography. As is the case for other leading Green party politicians, Trittin is rather mum about his activities before 1982. I have this strange suspicion this is owed to the fact that in the seventies he was an active member of a German communist splinter group...)

Update: EU ROTA has a very thorough analysis of the global warming hysteria of Jürgen Trittin. And Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit quotes a NYT article rejecting the "global warming caused Katrina" thesis. His conclusion: "It's sad to see such lame political opportunism at a time like this." Well, what can I say - this is German politics...

"The core of the criticism against us here and in other, more extensive emails is from my point of view: The bringers of bad news are often unpopular. The facts reported on by Panorama are namely hardly brought into question – no wonder, they are true. Instead of founded criticism, some hope to use the anti-Americanism accusation to create the impression of substance."

The answer, written by Panorama editor Volker Steinhoff, and posted in the Panorama forum, goes on to cite comments left by our readers (NOT by us) to show how invalid our criticism supposedly is. But those comments have nothing to do with our criticism nor did we author them. It would be as if we criticized Panorama's arguments by pointing out comments left in their forum by total strangers. Steinhoff continues:

"Much more troubling than the lack of differentiation of the criticism is its understanding of the law: A basic pillar of humanistic democracies is the right to life. Whether it was a "mercy shooting" or not is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in line with an enlightened understanding of the law."

Unfortunately, Mr. Steinhoff (co-author of the Panorama report) obviously chooses to misrepresent or ignore (something he is obviously very good at) what we said in our first article. Instead he again relies on comments that we did not author in our comments section. Here is what we actually wrote on that point in our original post (bold in original):

"Let's be very clear: Maynulet's actions were absolutely indefensible and we are not trying to excuse them in any way. But when all of the facts of this particular case are presented to observers in a fair and sober light, the punishment meted out to Maynulet no longer seems "incomprehensible," though one could certainly still argue that the punishment was too light."

In any case, this is the classic defense we expected from Panorama. Instead of admitting that they made gross omissions, the staff writes that all of the facts presented are true and that we at Medienkritik are shooting the messenger with unsubstantiated claims of anti-Americanism. It may well be that the individual facts presented in the report are true, but, by themselves, they obviously do not tell the entire story in a fair, comprehensive and balanced manner.

Clearly, the overall story told by Panorama is not true because it is simply and undeniably incomplete. By grossly omitting facts vital to understanding the case, the television magazine has badly failed to properly and completely inform its audience. Furthermore, Mr. Steinhoff clearly seeks to further distract readers from our main critique by pointing to comments not belonging to the authors of this blog.

Here, again, are the key omissions that Panorama refuses to acknowledge:

1. First of all, the man shot and killed in the incident, identified as Karim Hassan Abed Ali al-Haleji, was a driver for an aide of Muqtada Al-Sadr's Shiite movement and a paramilitary member of that militia. This is the same Al-Sadr movement responsible for the killing of numerous US soldiers and major combat throughout Iraq. At the time of the incident, Hassan was at the wheel of a black sedan which led Maynulet's company on a chase in the midst of a hotbed of insurgent activity. Maynulet's men fired on the vehicle, wounding both passengers inside.

2. And that brings us to the second critical point omitted by Panorama: According to the report of an on-scene medic, the Iraqi driver had already suffered traumatic fatal wounds in the initial exchange before Maynulet ever approached and shot him. According to a CBS news report:

"During Maynulet's Article 32 hearing -- the equivalent of a civilian grand jury investigation -- witnesses testified that the driver had been shot in the head when Maynulet saw him. A fellow officer said Maynulet told him he then shot the man out of compassion. (...)

When a medic pulled the driver out of the car, it was clear he had suffered critical injuries, with part of his skull blown away, according to testimony during the Article 32 hearing held June 25-Oct. 14 in Baghdad and Hanau, Germany.

Maynulet's fellow officer, 1st Lt. Colin Cremin, testified that Maynulet told him he then shot the Iraqi in the base of the neck or the back of the head.

"It was something he didn't want to do, but it was the compassionate response," Cremin testified. "It was definitely the humane response."

A U.S. drone surveillance aircraft caught the killing was on video."

So why does Panorama fail to report that part of the driver's skull was blown away and that he was covered in his own brain mass (and essentially dead) before Maynulet ever approached and shot him? A BBC report tells of testimony in the case stating that the Iraqi driver "had half his brain hanging out" when Maynulet shot him. And thirdly,why does Panorama never mention the "mercy killing" aspect to the story and simply label the incident a virtual "execution"?

I want to openly challenge Mr. Steinhoff and his colleagues at Panorama to FULLY explain the obvious and gross omissions that they made in their report "Torture and Killing without Punishment - Exonerations for US Soldiers" as outlined in points A and B above. We will publish any answer in full on this site. And please stop hiding behind comments left on this site that have nothing to do with our criticism Sir!

It is particularly ironic that Panorama chooses to say that we are shooting the messenger. In fact the very opposite is true. This is more of the same blank denial that we have grown accustomed to in the German media. And that is why we will continue to expose them every time.

Just so Mr. Steinhoff and his friends at Panorama are clear on one thing: We at Davids Medienkritik are not going anywhere. We will tirelessly continue to expose misrepresentations and omissions made at Panorama and elsewhere in the German media and we don't ever plan to stop.

Endnote: Since Mr. Steinhoff was so interested in the comments on our site, I thought I'd translate one of the comments left in the Panorama forum on the "Torture and Killing without Punishment - Exonerations for US Soldiers" piece:

"Torturing and Killing Without Penalty

The report shows (among other things through the critical evaluation of American observers themselves) that the military is dangerous as soon as it removes itself from the control of the democratic state. One has to ask how powerful the control of democracy in the USA still is at all. This large and once model nation is, through religious fundamentalism and arbitrary leadership of the military, increasingly becoming a danger to the world!"

If only the person who wrote this knew the extent to which he was being lied to by Panorama...and the sad part is that nearly 3 million Germans viewed the report on television. (WATCH THE VIDEO HERE)

The report has an emotionally powerful, highly charged opening. It begins with chilling music and shows us the family of the man shot by Maynulet squatting around the dead man's portrait in a dark, dimly-lit room. A small Iraqi girl is shown with tragic eyes peering at out from behind the television screen. The moderator's deep, solemn voice can be heard in the background:

"Mourning for the father. A targeted killing, virtually an execution. From the process they know: The father's car was shot at by US soldiers. He was still alive, badly wounded. Then came an American and shot him in the head - two times."

The next thing shown is a corpse wrapped in white sheets being carried away. The dead man's brother is shown appealing to all Americans for justice.

German viewers are told the story of an Iraqi father whose automobile is shot at by American soldiers. Almost no context is provided on the initial shooting. Somehow it all seems tragic, random and violent. Random that is until the American "killer" Maynulet shot the Iraqi father to death in cold blood. A senseless act of violence.

The next thing German viewers see is Maynulet, labeled "the killer" by Panorama, leaving a military courtroom in Germany a free man. His only punishment a discharge from the Army. Viewers are shown Maynulet's family praising his release, calling their son an "American hero" of whom they are proud and lauding the "American justice system" while the family of the man shot to death is coldly brushed aside despite their impassioned pleas.

This Panorama report is a particularly sinister case of media gone bad. It is the case of gross omission and bias. It is a case of journalists as propagandists inspiring hate against entire nations. As proof that Americans continue to "briskly" torture in Iraq and elsewhere, we are first offered the Maynulet case as outlined above. But, as is so often the case, a number of critical facts are left-out or intentionally ignored:

First of all, the man shot and killed in the incident, identified as Karim Hassan Abed Ali al-Haleji, was a driver for an aide of Muqtada Al-Sadr's Shiite movement and a paramilitary member of that militia. This is the same Al-Sadr movement responsible for the killing of numerous US soldiers and major combat throughout Iraq. At the time of the incident, Hassan was at the wheel of a black sedan which led Maynulet's company on a chase in the midst of a hotbed of insurgent activity. Maynulet's men fired on the vehicle, wounding both passengers inside.

And that brings us to the second critical point omitted by Panorama: According to the report of an on-scene medic, the Iraqi driver had already suffered traumatic fatal wounds in the initial exchange before Maynulet ever approached and shot him. According to a CBS news report:

"During Maynulet's Article 32 hearing -- the equivalent of a civilian grand jury investigation -- witnesses testified that the driver had been shot in the head when Maynulet saw him. A fellow officer said Maynulet told him he then shot the man out of compassion. (...)

When a medic pulled the driver out of the car, it was clear he had suffered critical injuries, with part of his skull blown away, according to testimony during the Article 32 hearing held June 25-Oct. 14 in Baghdad and Hanau, Germany.

Maynulet's fellow officer, 1st Lt. Colin Cremin, testified that Maynulet told him he then shot the Iraqi in the base of the neck or the back of the head.

"It was something he didn't want to do, but it was the compassionate response," Cremin testified. "It was definitely the humane response."

A U.S. drone surveillance aircraft caught the killing was on video."

So why does Panorama fail to report the testimony that part of the driver's skull was blown away and that he was covered in his own brain mass before Maynulet ever approached and shot him? A BBC report tells of testimony in the case stating that the Iraqi driver "had half his brain hanging out" when Maynulet shot him. And thirdly,why does Panorama never mention the "mercy killing" aspect of the testimony and simply label the incident a virtual "execution"?

Why? Because had Panorama mentioned those mitigating circumstances in its report, it wouldn't have achieved the same emotional outrage from its viewers. Such inconvenient details wouldn't have meshed well with images of Iraqi children and their murdered father. The report wouldn't have provoked the same angry, emotional response against the US military establishment and President Bush. And that is what Panorama was really after.

Let's be very clear: Maynulet's actions were absolutely indefensible and we are not trying to excuse them in any way. But when all of the facts of this particular case are presented to observers in a fair and sober light, the punishment meted out to Maynulet no longer seems "incomprehensible," though one could certainly still argue that the punishment was too light.

The point is that this Panorama report is yet another example of grossly insincere, unprofessional journalism that is essentially thinly-veiled propaganda. The truth is abandoned for ideology and emotionalism. Millions of Germans are told the Maynulet story through the distorted lens of profoundly biased media and many of them will believe they are getting the full storyand the entire truth...but they aren't.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this all is that programs like Panorama on large public networks like ARD are funded by the German state through billions of Euros in mandatory taxes levied on everyone owning a television and/or radio in Germany with few exceptions. And anti-American campaign journalism has become a regular fixture of German public broadcasting. One has to wonder why the US Embassy is not speaking out more about outrageous programs such as this.

Note: Panorama's editors can be reached at: panorama@ndr.de. The editor responsible for this piece is Volker Steinhoff who produced it along with reporter John Goetz.

Click the link below to read further comments from one of our readers on this program:

Leftist political principles resonate well among German voters. In a poll conducted for Spiegel by TNS Infratest, 56% of west germans and 66% of east germans agree with this statement: "Socialism is a good idea that has so far been poorly implemented." 50% in the west and 73% in the east agree that Karl Marx's criticisms of Capitalism are still relevant today. The proposition "there must be a third way between capitalism and socialism" finds agreement among 67% of the westerners and 63% of the easterners.

Actually, Germany already found the third way between capitalism and socialism: 10 % unemployment rate, shrinking of real disposable income, deteriorating public services, severe financing problems of the health system, etc., etc.

I suppose we won't have to wait too long for another try at socialism in Germany. After all, "socialism is a good idea that has so far been poorly implemented."

Germans are more intellectual and less superficial than Americans, right? Germans would sure like to think so. But the election campaign here is turning into a decidedly American personality contest. A Thursday evening television debate had the new German politics on display. ...

American political campaigns are filled with easy to digest sound bites and the occasional effort to talk politics, whereas German papers are filled with the minutiae of day-to-day politics and overly wonkish election campaigns that Al Gore would kill to be a part of. ...

Something is happening on the way to the German vote on Sept. 18 and it's not pretty. Call it the Americanization of German politics. ...

In fact, the only question really left to answer in the election is how many Germans will actually head out to cast their ballots. Nobody will be surprised if voter turnout is decidedly American.

I guess if only German politics would produce economic results that are "decidedly American", Germans would be more than willing to put up with the "Americanization of German politics".

Germany's Bundesverfassungsgericht (constitutional court) cleared the way for a general election on September 18, 2005. So Schroeder got his will - and will with certainty lose his chancellor job as a result of this election. Its safe to predict the same fate for foreign minister Fischer.

I'm just not sure what a new government will mean for German-American relations. A change in style: definitely. Chancellor Angela Merkel would not publicly criticize or "warn" the U.S. government in the arrogant manner Schroeder or Fischer did against "going alone" or using military means in Iraq or Iran.

But don't expect a change in substance. The next German government will not contribute a soldier or even a penny to military actions aimed at solving problems in Iraq or Iran. A Merkel government will most likely actively try to convince the U.S. government to turn to peaceful, "soft", diplomatic approaches in dealing with the Mullahs in Iran or the terrorist insurgents in Iraq. No chance for German support for the current U.S. administration in the UN Security Council, if German should become a permanent member.

This SPIEGEL interview with Wolfgang Gerhardt foreshadows the foreign policy of the next German government, at least if the Free Democrats (FDP) will be coalition partner of Merkel's CDU/CSU. Gerhardt, currently chairman of the FDP faction in the Bundestag, the German parliament, about the Iran crisis:

SPIEGEL: ... President George W. Bush says: "all options are on the table."

Gerhardt: There isn't any realistic chance of military action because the US cannot afford to overstrain itself. (...)

SPIEGEL: Wolfgang Schäuble, the conservatives' (CDU) foreign policy expert, is demanding a demonstration of unity with the US. On the Iran question he is therefore much closer to Bush than you are.

Gerhardt: We (the liberals) differed with Mr. Schäuble over the war in Iraq, and the same is true here. The US has found peace with India and Pakistan, both of whom acquired nuclear power status through their contempt for the non-proliferation treaty. If it's acceptable there, one can hardly threaten another country -- with which, incidentally, negotiations are ongoing -- with the military option.

SPIEGEL: So you don't want to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb at any price?

Gerhardt: "At any price" always means: it's my way or the highway! That's not a policy which sits comfortably in the tradition of German foreign diplomacy.

The "tradition of German foreign diplomacy" of course refers to FDP's Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Germany's foreign minister for 18 years under chancellors Brandt, Schmidt and Kohl. A leading German journalist, Josef Joffe, wrote:

Genscher was the master tactician-so much so that Richard Burt, the U.S. ambassador in the early 1980s, would end up calling him a "slippery man." The compliment was hardly misplaced, for Genscher was indeed hard to pin down. What did he want, and where did he want to take his country? From his rhetoric, it was usually impossible to tell.

He loved to wrap himself in the fog of bienpensant oratory. Genscher, the diplomat's diplomat, was an exemplar of political correctness before PC was even a gleam in a

The German media, as a source of German political humor, are no exception to the rule. A case in point is this desperate attempt of left-wing daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung to be funny on the expense of (you guessed it) Americans.

Please check this site from Sueddeutsche called "Bundesdance" (skip intro). The site presents German politicians in awkward dancing movements, which already is very funny. But it gets even better! Click on "Amerikaner" (Americans) in the box "Randgruppe" (minority group). You can't stop laughing, right? Obese Americans with fast food items - hilarious!! None of the other groups in the Randgruppe box are treated as disrespectful as "Amerikaner", not even the North Koreans (Schurkenstaaten). (I just wonder why Sueddeutsche didn't use this pic they already have on file to depict a really fat American...)

Well, Sueddeutsche's humor has entertained us before. As we mentioned then, Groucho Marx once observed that the two thinnest books in the world are the ones on edible British cooking and on German humor.

Germany's federal election campaign isn't really a hotbed of anti-Americanism or even anti-Bush rhetoric. People are more concerned about jobs and the economic misery that has befallen the country.

But the lack of anti-Americanism is not the fault of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. He and his party SPD (Social-Democrats) are trying hard to make resistance to the Iraq war or a possible military conflict with Iran a major topic of the election campaign.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the SPD's election posters:

Translation: "He Who Wants Peace Must Stand Firm"(I know, I know, Schroeder's democratic credentials are head and shoulder above this guy's, but there are some optical similarities in the way they both display firmness...)

Wording and picture of the poster convey the same message: It takes a strong guy - such as Schroeder - to oppose war mongers like ... well, you know who we mean (hint for search terms: cowboy, Texas, card carrying member of the religious right, oil company's little boy).

If you think there is a contradiction between the slogan "He Who Wants Peace Must Stand Firm" and Schroeder's willingness to sell weapons to China - well, you're dead wrong. You don't get the nuances of German politics, sucker. China, after all, never ever would turn to military means to solve political problems. OK, there is the occasional brutal crushing of internal opposition, the unpleasant mass executions, the decades-long suppression of Tibet or the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan... but other than that China's human rights credentials are unsurpassed by anyone Chancellor Schroeder could think of. Also, the Chinese make nice business partners...

Translation: "We Stand for the Courage (required) for Peace: What do the Others Stand For?"

Nice shot at opposition leader Angela Merkel, while at the some time questioning the moral foundation of the policies of a certain American ultra right, neoncon, non-nuanced Texan cowboy...

Translation: "For Peace: Against Blindly Following"

For the uninitiated: the SPD does not warn against blindly following Russia's policies. Putin's personality is not of any concern for the German left - after all, the chap knows a good joke when he hears one...

Rather, the SPD warns against blindly following the belligerent, dangerous course of a certain Texan cowboy politician. Which shouldn't surprise anyone watching the treatment of the U.S. president in German politics and in the German media in the last couple of years...

Oops, we forgot to translate a piece that appears in all of the above posters. "Vertrauen in Deutschland" means "Trust in Germany".

For which Gerhard Schroeder has tirelessly worked since 1998. The results are very encouraging so far. And let's not forget that along with wanting to sell EU weapons and a nuclear reactor to China, the "peace" Chancellor has already shipped German troops out to the Balkans and Afghanistan, once even calling a confidence vote to push his policy through over resistance in his own coalition.

This just in(no kidding): German chancellor Schroeder nominated for 2005 Nobel Peace Price. Well, don't panic: there are 165 other nominees, Colin Powell included. Still, awarding Schroeder with the Nobel Peace Price would be like honoring Jacques Chirac for honest diplomacy. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy...

(Hat tip Gabi)

(More coverage of the German Bundestag elections at Davids Medienkritik: 1, 2, 3)

Could it be that SPIEGEL ONLINE finally wants to bring some balance to its reporting on George W. Bush? Does the magazine actually want to present the US President to readers as something more than an ignorant, trigger-happy, war-mongering, human-rights-abusing, unilateralist, cowboy-hegemon constantly under "massive pressure"?

A recent article entitled "Readings: Bush and the Great Czar," seems to provide a tiny shimmer of hope that perhaps the magazine is looking to begin the process of balancing out years of biased journalism. The article discusses the President's selection of three books to read while on vacation. They include "Alexander II - The Last Great Tsar," by Russian historian Edward Radzinski, "Salt - A World History" by Mark Kurlansky and "The Great Influenza - The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History" by John Barry.

When first reading "Bush and the Great Czar," one might honestly think that SPIEGEL ONLINE is trying to give readers a true glimpse of the President while hinting that he is not a profoundly ignorant cowboy after all. But as the article unfolds, the usual tell-tale signs of bias quickly overtake all hopes of fairness. Here's an excerpt:

"The next book on the list, "Salt - A World History" by Mark Kurlansky handles the story of a substance that was once so important as oil is today. Finally "The Great Influenza - The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History," by John Barry. The worldwide Influenza epidemic of 1918 is described, to which more than 20 million people fell victim. Possible that Bush hopes to gain ideas as to how to handle such a pandemic, perhaps caused by terrorists with biological and chemical weapons."

That's right. It all comes down to power, oil and terror. And loyal SPIEGEL ONLINE readers hardly need the magazine to spoon-feed them the real reasons why Bush has selected the books. But the publication does it anyway. And if there is any doubt that SPIEGEL ONLINE is still not the same old magazine that it has always been, one need only look at the mandatory condescending photo caption with the usual less than flattering photo:

"US President Bush does read sometimes - and not just stories about hungry caterpillars (like here in a visit to an elementary school)"

It's clear what this reminds SPON readers of. We'll give you a hint: It's a movie by a man with the initials MM.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder desperately tries to energize his doomed re-election campaign by "warning" against military "adventures" of the U.S. government in the nuclear conflict with Iran. Only with peaceful means, according to Schroeder, can the Iranian government be convinced not to develop nuclear weapons. Of course, no one in German politics or in the German media would dare to oppose Schroeder's anti-war rethoric.

Not much is heard, though, from Gerhard Schroeder and the German media about some not so peaceful activities of the Iranian government. The Iranian democratic opposition sure would appreciate some help...

On behalf of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan-Iran (DPKI) for diplomatic relations in Germany, Austria and the European parliament to the representatives of the German mass media:

My dear Ladies and Gentlemen!

... This past month the Kurdish population took to the streets of Iranian Kurdistan’s cities to voice their demand for freedom and democratic rights and to protest the Islamic Republic’s repressive policies in Kurdistan. All month the Iranian regime’s revolutionary guards (Pasdaran) have been attacking Kurdish demonstrators. As a result dozens of people have been killed, hundreds seriously injured, and some 1000 Kurdish women have been arrested.

The arrested demonstrators have been subjected to unbearable torture. People don't dare bring their wounded relatives to the hospitals for fear of being abducted by the organs of repression and tortured to death. And for a month the world, including the media, has looked on and done nothing as people in Iranian Kurdistan were brutally beaten, shot, and tortured to death in prison. Europe’s governments turn a blind eye to the systematic human rights violations and constant murders in Kurdistan to justify and sustain their economic ties to the Iranian terror regime.

But how do the media justify their silence about all the human rights violations and the massacre of Iran’s defenseless Kurdish population? Means to combat terrorism are reported and discussed daily in Europe’s mass media. That's open for debate. But one thing is quite certain in this matter: international terrorism can’t be combated while ignoring its most important spiritual and financial patron, the Islamic Republic. ...

Consequently we appeal to you in the name of democracy and human rights and in the interest of objective reporting to break your silence about the bloody events in Iranian Kurdistan. Denounce the Islamic Republic’s grave human rights violations and inhuman policies. (emphasis added)

Recently one of Germany's larger media firms announced that it planned to purchase a majority stake in ProSiebenSat1, Germany's second largest broadcasting corporation. So what? No big deal, just another corporate merger, right...?

Wrong. This isn't just any media firm: It's Axel Springer. And Axel Springer is the sort of company that touches a very raw nerve with certain groups of Germans. For starters, it is a firm that values a strong transatlantic partnership, supports the Israeli peoples' right to existence and is dedicated to fighting totalitarianism. But that is just the half of it. The firm, which owns newspapers like "Die Welt" and the best-selling tabloid "Bild," is also perceived as conservative. And to top it all off, the Chairman of Axel Springer is one Mathias Doepfner, a man who has mercilesslycriticized the resurgentanti-American, anti-capitalist, pro-appeasement tendencies in German society.

So when Springer announced it wanted to expand its reach, a shrill cry went up from the ranks of the German left that democracy itself was being threatened by over-concentration of media. Particularly loud, fearful objections were registered at Stern and Der SPIEGEL. The SPD's Vice-Chairman for its parliamentary fraction, Ludwig Stiegler commented openly that, "This is a very alarming concentration of media power in a conservative publishing house." Stiegler added, "Springer shouldn't celebrate too soon. I am certain that the anti-trust authorities will take a very close look at the merger."

Germany's Real Media Hegemon: Bertelsmann

As is so often the case, the outcry was a highly selective one motivated in part by personal interests and political fears. Remember that Stern is Germany's most widely read weekly with 8 million
readers and Der SPIEGEL is more or less tied for second-place with
FOCUS with around 5 million. And it just so happens that Bertelsmann,
far and away Germany's largest and most powerful media corporation(and
Axel Springer's major competitor), owns a majority share in Stern and a 25.5% stake in Der SPIEGEL through its subsidiary Gruner & Jahr.

And let's just compare Germany's two largest media firms for a moment: Bertelsmann has a turnover of 17 billion Euros, a presence in 63 nations and a workforce of over 76,000 employees. Axel Springer has a turnover of 2.5 billion Euros, a presence in 27 countries and a workforce of 10,700. Should its merger succeed, Springer would still be much smaller than Bertelsmann. Yet we are supposed to be worried about the over-concentration of media power at Axel Springer? Is there something wrong with this picture?

The Wall Street Journal: "Axel Springer's Enemies"

No one has given a better account of the ongoing hypocrisy in German media and politics vis-a-vis Springer than the Wall Street Journal. Here are excerpts from an outstanding August 11 editorial that hit the nail right on the head:

"German democracy is under attack. At least that is what a flock
of the media elite has been claiming since Axel Springer, Germany's largest
newspaper publisher, said Friday it would buy ProSiebenSat.1, the country's
second-largest broadcasting group. This "cannot be in the interest of
democracy," said Michael Konken, the chairman of Germany's journalist association.
Frank Werneke, a trade union leader, called for "the containment of media
power across sectors."

These concerns would sound more sincere if they also had been
voiced four years ago when Bertelsmann, the world's fourth-largest media
company, took control of RTL Group, Germany's largest broadcaster. But back
then, there were no such warnings about democracy's imminent decline.
Bertelsmann's outlets are more to the liking of the German left.

Let's look at some of the facts. Although the acquisition will
nearly double Springer's sales to about €4.2 billion, Bertelsmann still dwarfs
its competitor, with global sales more than four times higher. Bertelsmann's
German business alone still outpaces its rival with about €5 billion in sales.
RTL is slightly more popular than ProSiebenSat.1 but neither broadcaster
reaches 25% of the German audience -- the ceiling regulators have set for
combined print and television companies. (...)

The principles Springer journalists are expected to support are
freedom and democracy in Germany and efforts to bring the peoples of Europe
closer together; reconciliation between Jews and Germans, which includes
support for Israel's right to exist; the trans-Atlantic alliance and the
liberal value community with the U.S.; the rejection of totalitarianism and the
defense of Germany's free, social-market economy.

What sounds like a manifesto that any reasonable democrat in
Germany should be able to sign is now being called a threat to the country's
democracy. Without doubt, the company's commitment to the trans-Atlantic
relationship is what irks its opponents the most. Springer publications often
criticize U.S. policies but its readers will not find the kind of hysterical
anti-Americanism now so prevalent in much of Germany's media.

Consider the two weeklies Stern and Der Spiegel, both with
circulations of over a million and links to Bertelsmann. Der Spiegel in
particular is considered Germany's most high-brow and influential political
magazine. To give a flavor of the kind of image these two publications spread
of the U.S. and the Bush administration, one only has to look at some of their
covers.

Last fall, when General Motors was considering layoffs at its
German Opel unit (which in the end did not happen), Stern's front page showed a
giant cowboy boot with the American flag on it about to step on a group of
people grouped together to form the Opel logo. The headline was "The
Wild-West Method." Another front page in March 2004 showed President
George W. Bush in front of an American flag above what looks like a Middle
Eastern city from which smoke is rising up. Headline: "How America lied to
the world." The story was about the Iraq war, of course.

Before the U.S. election last November, Der Spiegel showed a
caricature of President Bush dressed as a cowboy ready to shoot his opponent.
The headline here was "Will America become democratic again?" Another
front page in 2003 showed the American flag with little assault rifles and gas
nozzles superimposed on the stars, headlined "Blood for oil. What Iraq is
really about."

Television, particularly public broadcasters ARD and ZDF, whose
news shows are still the most trusted, often echoes such themes. According to
Media-Tenor, a media analysis center headquartered in Bonn, their Iraq coverage
was at times even more negative than that of al-Jazeera.

Rather than stifling the political debate, Springer's expansion
to the TV world is likely to introduce the kind of "plurality of
opinions" its opponents claim he threatens. What Springer threatens is not
the diversity of view but the uniformity of view and group think -- and that
can only be healthy for Germany's democracy."

We at Medienkritik would like to think that the above was inspired to some degree by our work. Apparently the Journal's article caught the attention of Springer Chairman Mathias Doepfner, who made reference to it in a recent interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. We wanted to link to that interview, but for some reason SPIEGEL ONLINE has taken the unusual step of restricting access to the piece with a fee after only two days. So we will work on an English translation for you. Stay tuned for that...

There was only so much the CDU could do. The party was stuck between a rock and a hard place. When Gerhard Schroeder decided to make peace-at-all-costs a campaign issue for the second election in a row, he knew he was putting his political opponents under enormous pressure. To understand why, one need only rewind to the last national election. In 2002, Schroeder pulled off a come-from-behind victory by mercilessly playing on the pacifist fears of the German people on Iraq. And the tactic worked brilliantly, particularly in eastern Germany, where Schroeder made enormous gains at the expense of the Communist PDS party.

Now its election time again. And the "peace Chancellor" is hoping the same emphasis on foreign policy will carry his party back to power. This time it's Iran. After President George W. Bush commented this past week that he would not rule out military force as a last option in confronting Iran over its nuclear program, Schroeder quickly seized the opportunity by declaring that he was for "taking military options from the table," a position enormously popular with German voters. That left Angela Merkel's CDU (Christian Democrats) with a difficult choice: Either reject Schroeder's position on principle and incur massive electoral losses (as they did in 2002) at a time when the party is stumbling and struggling to hold its majority, or cave on the issue and assume a pacifist position to neutralize Schroeder's ability to exploit it.

It now appears that the CDU has adopted Schroeder's position, thereby abandoning its earlier ideals and diminishing its commitment to a strong transatlantic partnership. But at the same time, it is a position forced on them by the shameless, populist exploitation of the issue by Schroeder. Above all, it is a position forced on the CDU by the majority of the German electorate which has long been staunchly pacifist and would severely punish the party were it to decide differently. Considering Germany's history over the past century, the nation's knee-jerk pacifism is hardly surprising. But it also makes it difficult for Germany to play a leading, responsible role in world affairs and leaves the country looking like a geopolitical lightweight. The mullahs in Iran would certainly be delighted if all the world's nations adopted such a dangerously naive "negotiations only" approach to its nuclear program.

So what does this all mean? It means that whoever wins the election and whatever constellation emerges in the next German government, it will be extremely difficult for Germany's next set of leaders to stand firmly beside the United States when future international conflicts arise. Now that both major parties have adopted a diplomacy-only approach to Iran, it will be difficult to find common ground with the United States should the Iranians decide to push the matter. And the new German position of peace-at-all-costs certainly emboldens Persia's Mullahs to do just that.

Germany's most widely read political weekly magazine is "stern,"
which ranks ahead of both Der Spiegel and Focus with a circulation of
around 8 million. That's right, we are talking about the same "stern" that ran the
following two covers about "How America Lied to the World" and another
depicting a boot draped in an American flag crushing German workers:

Earlier "stern" covers on the United States

It's also the same "stern" that recently ran an incredibly degrading gallery of American stereotypes and published another article
on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day comparing Condoleezza Rice to Barney the
Dog while labeling her the "voice of her master." It's the same "stern"
that called American soldiers involved in the tragic shooting of an
Italian agent murderers with absolutely no proof and then quickly back peddled when we at Medienkritik called them on it.

Now stern is doing its part for the Schroeder-Fischer government by
publishing propaganda that Michael Moore would be proud of. The subject
is Joschka Fischer. The online magazine currently features an interview with the Foreign Minister
in which Fischer is practically encouraged to criticize the opposition
and is asked totally uncritical questions about his
campaign and exercise regimen. We at Medienkritik have never seen this many softball questions in such a short interview, and we have seen a lot of interviews.

But that's not all! Stern is also running another one of its famous photo galleries entitled "Foreign Minister: Now Again for Loving." As you might have guessed, the pictures all depict Fischer in a highly positive, even heroic light.

Stern's Heroic Fischer: The US Media Pro-Government? What About the German Media?

"With
a bus tour through the country, the Ober-Green Joschka Fischer wants to
turn things around. He fights for Red-Green, for Schroeder and for
himself. Within just a few months he has re-invented himself. A report
from Fischer's bus.

Fischer is fit. (...) Fischer attacks, but he doesn't injure, he has
bite, but he spares himself the malice. He is different from just a few
months back. That's how the people like him. That is how he catches
them, the person-Fischer. (...)

Since May 22 Fischer is once again Joschka - and Joschka wants to
test himself once again. Red-Green without a chance? Fischer is the
leading candidate of the Greens, he is their workhorse, everything is
built around him, everything depends on him. And he wants to show
everyone. With a bus, with a journey, with countless speeches, talks,
interviews. "Summer journey" is what the Greens call it. Fischer wants
to travel the nation for five and a half weeks. Without a break. Just
the length of the journey is a message in itself. This is Fischer's
campaign, so they say. He, Joschka, is fighting until election day for
government, for his office and for respect. For the Greens, for the SPD
for himself and for Gerhard Schroeder. The last upright man at the
Red-Green round table."

Gag...choke...cough.
This sort of propaganda sounds like it was written by the former East
German propaganda masters about Comrade Honecker and all of his great
deeds and tireless efforts.

And this campaign is only starting to get hot. Media like stern and SPIEGEL have been lambasting the conservative CDU/CSU and the FDP at every opportunity. Instead of talking about real issues like the economy and Germany's massive unemployment, the left-wing media has been reporting on armpit sweat, Edmund Stoiber's frustration with "the frustrated" in eastern Germany and Guido Westerwelle's campaign bus from 2002, the "Guidomobil". They run photo after photo of infighting, sneering conservatives while portraying Schroeder and Fischer as cool professionals on the comeback trail.

This is all about bias folks, don't be fooled. If the media wanted to find infighting, embarrassing gaffes and problems in Schroeder's camp and blow them out of proportion, they could easily do so. But they won't. They could talk about the years of economic failure of the Schroeder-Fischer government and the misery of Germany's millions of unemployed or about the numerous blatant inconsistencies in recent Schroeder statements on Iran. But they won't.

And it is going to geta lot uglier. Count on it. Many in the German media badly want to help Fischer and Schroeder stay in power and will do so at all costs, even if it means ignoring all journalistic standards and further denigrating the already low standard of German media.

This is all about ideology ladies and gentlemen. Make no mistake...the fun has just begun, so stay tuned until election day...